DELAWARE HB 167 COULD PUT YOU WORKING NEXT TO A CRIMINAL

[SturmRugerSR9]

Delaware HB 167, better known as a " Ban The Box" Bill could put you working next to a convicted felon. They could be a have been convicted of a sex crime, robbery, assault, etc. But if this bill, which would make it illegal for a job applicant to be required to check the box marked "have you ever been convicted of a crime? If yes explain". or for that matter to have it on the application at all.


http://legis.delaware.gov/lis/lis147.nsf/vwlegislation/E9E00DD43749FD4B85257B2600638F6D

Naturally this little blunder is sponsored by your Democrat/Liberal/Progressives in the Legislature. Most of which come from NCC.

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

Delaware HB 167, better known as a " Ban The Box" Bill could put you working next to a convicted felon. They could be a have been convicted of a sex crime, robbery, assault, etc. But if this bill, which would make it illegal for a job applicant to be required to check the box marked "have you ever been convicted of a crime? If yes explain". or for that matter to have it on the application at all.


http://legis.delaware.gov/lis/lis147.nsf/vwlegislation/E9E00DD43749FD4B85257B2600638F6D

Naturally this little blunder is sponsored by your Democrat/Liberal/Progressives in the Legislature. Most of which come from NCC.

That combined with gun control should make it pretty clear which party is soft on crime. Sadly most people are too brilliant to see it.

[Clarence]

Zodiac

I agree 100%.  This ridiculous idea that we ban someone FOR LIFE from the means to defend themselves is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  

This needs to be changed.  

Why don't the liberals rage about this?

[oldgraygeek]

Zodiac

I agree 100%.  This ridiculous idea that we ban someone FOR LIFE from the means to defend themselves is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  

This needs to be changed.  

Why don't the liberals rage about this?

I can't speak for all liberals, but the ones I argue against about this have a skewed view of the Second Amendment that is not consistent with the rest of their (and my) beliefs.
I believe that the Constitution restricts not only what the Federal government can do to its citizens, but also should be interpreted to restrict what the states can do. So, if it's illegal to restrict speech, or interfere with the right to vote, or illegally search someone, etc. on the Federal level, no state or smaller governmental unit should be able to do so.

Liberals, in general, are completely on board with that... except for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Many of them see the Second Amendment as a historical mistake. They view the prefatory clause as a restriction, instead of an explanation. They don't believe in "states' rights" (neither do I) except for restricting gun rights... logically inconsistent, but they accuse the right of the same logical inconsistency in reverse by giving the states the right to restrict same-sex marriage, women's rights, etc. and opposing restrictive state & local gun laws. (They have a point there, but to me it indicates that both sides are wrong).

When we armed liberals (and there are many of us) argue against their position on gun rights, we are often accused of being right-wing plants, NRA shills, or both. We have tried to explain it, and we keep trying, but the other side cries "Newtown! Columbine! Your gun is a phallic substitute! Why are you so afraid?"
I'm glad they've lived such sheltered lives that they have never needed to defend themselves. I have not been so lucky; my pessimism is born of experience.

[TwistedKarma]

   Silver multiquoted, hard to distinguish what he said verses, it looked like old grey  said it.
So it got deleted in whole.

  as far as the box,  there are criminals, and ones who haven't got caught.
There are employees who waste time at work.
They abuse time, come in late, and don't work more than 6 of the 8 hours a day.


   So , the box, is important for a buissness that needs to "not" put the person at the cash register.
or give them safe keys.

  But the flip side is , some people have learned from there mistakes.  So the box is controversial.   We would all hope that our prison system works, and teaches criminals to reform.
  it only reaches some.     statistics unknown to me.

  I have worked next to criminals,   reformed.    they work just as good as the boneheads on there smart phones passing porn back and forth, on work time.

[Hawkeye]

The bill specifies that once a background check is conducted an employer shall only consider felonies for 10 years from the completion of sentence, and misdemeanors for 5 years from the completion of sentence.

If someone can stay out of jail for 10 years after the completion of his sentence I say he has earned another chance.  My only exception to this would be sexual predators.

[Clarence]

A gun dealer told me that he had a college educated man with 3 children in his 40s that works for a large chemical corporation here in Wilmington and he was denied for a marijuana charge from 25 years ago when he was in his late teens. In the state he lived in at the time it was a 3 year maximum misdemeanor.  Under federal law that is a life disability for purchase. 

This is an injustice. 

[Moosie]

I'd have to agree, that denying a purchase for something from that long ago and was considered a misdemeanor in his state..  that's a bit much. I'm not a fan of drugs in any amount.  However, I also believe that what seems like it was a college kid enjoying some pot shouldn't impact his 2nd Amendment rights - assuming that he didn't have any other record. 

Moosie

[Hawkeye]

Smoking weed 25 years ago does not stop you from being President but it can stop you from buying a gun.  Maahvalous.